Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
ACLU, the United States Supreme Court found the anti-indecency provisions of the Act unconstitutional. [22] Writing for the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens held that "the CDA places an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech". [23] Section 230 [24] is a separate portion of the CDA that remains in effect.
The White House had also denied access to a select group of media outlets including The New York Times, CNN, BBC and The Guardian during a press gaggle while allowing right-wing outlets and blogs to participate, with the National Press Club describing the move as "unconstitutional censorship." [36]
Political censorship exists when a government attempts ... the United States Supreme Court found that many such restrictions are an unconstitutional form of censorship.
It’s often the case in Washington that the title of a bill communicates the exact opposite of its content or effect. Think, for example of the Affordable Care Act — a title that seemed almost ...
Content-based restrictions "are presumptively unconstitutional regardless of the government's benign motive, content-neutral justification, or lack of animus toward the ideas contained in the regulated speech." Restrictions that require examining the content of speech to be applied must pass strict scrutiny. [29]
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, unanimously ruling that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. [1]
Hiegert continued: “If folks are trying to use this legislation to ban all LGBTQ content, that is very clearly not what the bill does, and that would be an unconstitutional attempt to censor ...
Compare Twitter's move to censorship is questionable, especially given what constitutes censorship in China. Why Twitter’s “censorship” is not the same as China’s Skip to main content